My Side In The Gaza Conflict Is Entirely Right

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

When people are being killed and dying is not the time to apportion blame.

But since the deal between Israel and the US has made peace between Israel and Hamas, I say, how about now?

Unlike some, I look forward to responsiblity sheeting home to the most guilty, because throughout the conflict my side has been entirely in the right.

I should mention which side that is. I'll be clear: I support the good guys.

This ethical purity means one doesn't have to resort to anything as hamfisted and subjective as counting the number of innocent people the other side have killed or how psycho they are or whether - irrespective of what they might say - certain people's actions are really making the world a better place.

Never mind the death and destruction, our policy has from the beginning been to secure the moral high ground.

What you do not understand is that the people of the country I support are living in a climate of fear, caused by the bad guys. We have a monopoly on this suffering and must fight for our freedom using whatever means we have at our disposal, however extreme or irrational they may appear.

Nor do you know the history of the region. Some might prefer to pretend that history began on a certain day of their choice (and they are selective even then). In reality, the important issues in this conflict are all the bad things they have done to us.

They have repeatedly committed war crimes and been constantly condemned by the UN. They have breached at least some of the ceasefires. We are obliged to protect our people from these provocations.

Plus, our dead people count for more than theirs.

The dangerous lunatics on the other side seem incapable of distinguishing between the actions of our military and our civilian population. What would you expect from a nation so sick that their politicians can get electoral support by attacking another people? Though perhaps regrettable, it is right that they should all be punished for their complicity.

Especially since their leaders could have stopped the fighting at any time by ceasing their attacks. I wonder how they can sleep at night.

The people of the nation I support are a proud semitic people and they were there first.

Since the others started it, nothing that follows is our fault.

Whatever the others may have said in the past, it is clear from their actions that they would annihilate us if they could. Whereas all we want is a reasonable peace on our terms. And our actions are all well-thought-out steps that are in fact likely to lead to that state of affairs.

This may cause civilian casualties by we must defend our right to exist as a nation. However the actual number of casualties on either side is only relevent if they support my case.

Despite the immense procvoation of the murderers on the other side, we do not target civilians. Sometimes it happens that we hit them anyway. And we do fire at random into crowded areas from time to time, but only because we're forced to.

From time to time some of our supporters - especially on the fringes - may seem overly jingoistic and self-righteous, but we need to counter the one-eyed ravings of our opponents.

It does not help that the media is clearly biased against us, despited the transparent and sanctimonious lies of their official spokemen.

Fortunately, we have the support of the important parts of the international community.

Also, though I'm not clear exactly how this works, I am obliged to support the side I do because of my position on the liberal/conservative spectrum.

I short, it is obvious that we are entirely right and they are entirely wrong. This position is the best way forward and anyone who thinks differently is a dangerous idiot.

This is a bit silly - it just comes across as being sneeringly superior while refusing to actually get to grips with the issue (which is not one about tit for tat violence, but about whether Israel has the right to colonise Palestinian land).

You are not entirely right. If I understood correctly, you claim that Arabs--note that I say Arabs and not Palestinians (as Palestinians was a term first used by Arafat in the 1970s, previously these people were known as Arabs)--were there first. I would like to point out that this is historically incorrect. Firstly, I suggest you read the Torah, known by the Christian world as the Old Testament. It is also a very important aspect of Judaism to return to Israel, the land of the Jews. If you disregard religious texts as historical, that is also fine. May I then draw your attention to the numerous remains of Jewish life in Israel before the Romans, including the Western Wall. After Jews were forced to leave their homeland Arabs did inhabit some of the areas. However, the area was never densely populated and never were they a majority in any of the major cities. In the 19th century Jerusalem was dominated by Jews. The century also experienced the first waves of aliyah--the return to the homeland.

Not quite true, the term 'Palestinian' was in use to describe a resident of Palestine (you can see it in the 1947 UN resolution that divided the territory). It wasn't something Arafat made up.

The term 'Arab' is a very general one denoting those who use the Arabic language, in the case of Palestine, it was used to distinguish between Jewish people and Muslim and Christian Arabs (probably slightly inaccurately as I imagine there were at least a few Arab Jews in the area).

Of course there were historical Jewish settlements in the area - so what? I'd be laughed out of town if I went back to Scotland and demanded a right to live there because my ancestors did or co-religionists do, or because I present a religious text stating my links to the area.

Nor does the fact that an area was sparsley populated (even if true) mean anything. So was Australia - does that give people the right to colonise it?

@ Paul IIb: Yes it is. I've been holding off being too specific here because I've been bemused - but not surprised - by the reaction and wanted to see what else happened.

I do have an opinion, and I feel vaguely like I should have backed it somehow, but this was not the vehicle.

That said, I like to think the piece might prompt people to consider when the similarities end and distinctions can be made. But mostly by omission, so not really.

Basically, whose fault it is, is the wrong question for almost every purpose. So directing the debate into that area - which I have observed people to do - seems to me either misguided or disingenuous.

But that is perhaps oversubtle. Layers, you see.

Or else I'm talking up a piece that basically makes a fairly trite and not especially helpful point.

Ditto to Sam Buchanan. This writing is not accurate in my opinion. Zionism is a form of colonisation which is a crime under international law. If you want to live in a jungle then keep writing pieces like this.

Nor does the fact that an area was sparsley populated (even if true) mean anything. So was Australia - does that give people the right to colonise it?

The area was always populated by Jews, and not sparesly, as I mentioned already, Jews were the majority in the 19th century. Jews never fully left the land of Israel. So there was and is no colonisation, merely the numbers of Jews living there rose. And, colonisation is a disgusting word to use in this case. Colonisation is when a country decides to expand its territories, not when people return to their homeland, that was also allowed by the British Crown in 1917, and then by UN Resolution Number 41. Look it up. Everything is legal through and through.

And since the area of Israel was always Jewish, since biblical times, it rightfully belongs to the Jews.Besides. It's not as if Palestine doesn't exist. Their state has an area on the map that can sufficiently accommodate their population. If they choose to resort to terrorist tactics in order to sustain their terrorist regime, well, it is up to them, but Israel has 100% right to defend itself. Think of it this way. If New Zealand sent a rockt to Australia, NZ should be prepared for Australia to hammer them.

Also, prior to Arafat labeling all Arabs that lived in Palestine as Palestinians, they weren't called that. Hence, it is a term introduced solely for the purpose of their so called "freedom fighting."

Sam: Unless you have a magic wand that can make Israel vanish I'm not sure where your argument gets us. If you do, there are a few things I'd like to borrow it for first.

-

Airom: I take it you endorse the religious nationalism implicit in you last comment, so just on the 'self-defence' point... Even if you don't consider the blockade an act of war, Israel violated the ceasefire. You might have missed it - there was a US election going on at the time.

-

While, as I have said, the piece's scope was rather narrow, I think I have enough to conclude that you are the people I was complaining about, so I'm done here.

"If New Zealand sent a rockt to Australia, NZ should be prepared for Australia to hammer them. "

If New Zealand decided there were a lot of Kiwis in Melbourne, and had been for quite some time, so decided to occupy it, I don't thnk many people would have much sympathy if we complained that the Aussies were attacking us.

Lyndon - I disliked your article partially because it was so smug - the "I'm better than you because I'm not taking sides" tone, but also because it was a stupid caricature. I don't know anybody backing the Palestinians who considers "their side" to be faultless, and I don't imagine many of the pro-Israeli camp would either.

"Basically, whose fault it is, is the wrong question for almost every purpose."

True - but "what can we do about it?" isn't the first question - the first question is "what is the real problem/" which is what I'm trying to get at. The most common portrayl of the situation is that the problem is violence, so if everybody gives up violence, the problem will be solved (though while Hamas told to disarm, Israel isn't).

The reality is there will not be peace until there has been some semblance of justice, without it, Palestinians are going to look for increasingly desperate and irrational solutions (such as Islamic fundamentalism) and this question of justice is the area in which we need to be asking "what can be done?"

About FT

Contributor

Lyndon Hood is the person whose blog this is, though he only takes some of the responsibility. Don't read his profile, it's even less up-to-date than the blogroll. Come to think of it, his homepage hasn't been updated in a while either.email Lyndon